Shoot this messenger, before the truth runs from the break!
That is a truth that is obvious to the growing class of "left-right-out".

Dan

Mass immigration is the tool of lazy, incompetent Australian politicians. Countless surveys have shown that most Australians want immigration cut, but politicians can ignore the polls because both the Coalition and Labor support mass immigration. And there is no one else to vote for. Pauline Hanson and Bob Katter only have nuisance value.

Our hypocritical politicians are the same ones who rant about climate change, as they add more and more human polluters to an environment fit for a maximum of 13 million, but now heading for 50 million by the end of the century. The "most successful multicultural country" and "envy of the rest of the world" is total bullshite.

Rapid population growth of the kind seen since 2007 leads to productivity-sapping congestion. It also promotes investment in housing and additional infrastructure. This duplicates existing capital rather then enhancing it. Both congestion and capital widening lead to diseconomies of scale.

It is projected that 64% of housing growth in Sydney, and 54% in Melbourne will be due to net overseas migration up to 2020. This is why the housing industry lobbies for mass immigration policies, and squeals if there are any cuts.

It is actually more than that.

Mass immigration is aka fo Australia not having any other policy strategies

No doubt there's eagerness to get the inbound ferries moving again but things were slowing prior to the great covid distraction.

Some immigrants work hard and do jobs that lazy aussies prefer welfare over. Other immigrants just add to the welfare system and require more police and another dozen rent seekers to tell whites how racist they are for not accepting their culture.

We need to resume bringing in millions of cashed up Chinese to restart the economy and keep it afloat just like we were doing pre-WuFlu pandemic.

Australia has a Chinese future and all those not born Chinese can either like it or lump it.

Since I'm of the conspiratorial view, politicians endlessly conspire against the masses,
The view of ttbn to me is too conservative.

The public account of pecuniary interests of politicians, invariably display property holdings as a key investment area, we can be very sure, they will feather their own nests way before any consideration of public good.

Im of the view, ( and I'd be happy to see that view disproved), politicians happily watch the general population dispossessed of any stake in the country they live in, as a deliberately engineered policy, to increase the base of the renter class.

Rent slaves are the actual key to success of property investors. From their view, it is most unsuitable to flatten the rising curve of renters.

The second part if the investor strategy, is to have property values ever escalating, ( capital gains). Win win for one class, lose lose for the other class.

At this point, immigration is dovetailed into a more than useful assurance both branches of the money tree grow strongly.

After all, who will elect a politician that advocates a policy of reducing home values?

And who can argue with the constant and obviously true opinion of Mr Opinion.
I'll go further on his predictions, and nominate Hong Kong as the main mine for immigrants with money to burn.
This will be achieved by a sudden interest by politicians, in Human Rights abuses as the invented catalyst for acting on their personal needs.

Dan

Dan,

perhaps your view is warranted, but i really think that Austrlaia's political leaders, having long followed the principles of freer tade since the 1980s, have no clue to offer any alternative policy stance that would complicate previous policy rationale.

But certainly, some political grubs have benefited from high housing prices, fuelled also partly by high levels of immigration and the china gravy train.

Runner, I agree with you again. As well as that we have the natives in their ever increasing numbers telling us whites how racist we are for not accepting their culture.
David

Automation, autonomy and AI will negate the need tor population growth. And co-operative capitalism, real tax reform and a decarbonised, nuclear-powered economy is all we need to save all essential industries, along with massively increased demand for leisure industries as well as create thousands more wealth creation opportunities, the discretionary spend and niche export markets.

Timidity and blah, blah, blah, plus blah, blah, blah, is not any part of the solution, nor is the, business as usual, advantaging the big end of town/foreign investors and vested interest ahead of joe average and the battlers.

Or, as expected, socialising all the debt created in the recovery as well as make our young folk carry this can for several future generations as all the wealth is continually funnelled as per usual, into fewer and fewer hands?

And overseen by the chief money changer in the Temple, Mr smirk himself? I hope I'm wrong and stand to be corrected or proven right on the money, with the passage of, not very much time. Tick, tick, tick!
Alan B.

While millions live a life of quiet struggle if not JobKeeper allowance a cabal of special interests ensures it stays that way. After all they live comfortably in a leafy suburb so why can't everybody? I suggest we need a checklist of criteria before there is more immigration. That includes increasing (not decreasing) per capita GDP, less than 0.5m on what used to be called Newstart, less than 0.5m officially underemployed, average housing cost less than 25% of median income, elective surgery waiting lists under 3 months and an end to water wars.

Those criteria could be built into a population policy. That would factor in transfers from temporary visas to permanent residence, currently a backdoor way of keeping the numbers up. Trouble is we might find Australia's population should be 15m not 25m.

We have nearly doubled the optimal population of 13 million, given that two thirds of Australia is uninhabitable and the overall ecosystem is fragile.

As late as 2017, academics were still saying that the population should be no higher than 15 million. The people who reported this said that Australia's 'well being' had peaked 40 years previously. Unnecessary and "ideologically-driven growth” had come at “an immense and unjustifiable cost to our natural and social capital”.

Since the Lima Conference in the late 1970s, things have gone from bad to worse. We have outsourced to foreigners most of our manufacturing and all of the great variety of skills it entails; all the small businesses it supports, and the richness it once brought to our culture. Most of our drugs and medical equipment are now made overseas. So it is with electrical goods and clothing, except in small and rare areas. We certainly do not need more people, particularly as there are three quarters of a million people permanently unemployed in Australia. Yet, we are the fastest growing country in the OECD. And the population growth is due to mass immigration, beloved of both major parties who are 'electing' a new population. The bloated building industry loves mass immigration; employers love it because they don't have to compete for labour (stagnant wages).

In 2013, before the above-mentioned report, " Productivity Commission wrote that, with the then current rate of population growth, public and private investment would have to grow by five times the amount over the next 50 years as it had in the previous 50 years. There has been investment in infrastructure recently but not at THAT level, and not at a level high enough to keep up with population growth.

The estimated the infrastructure costs of settling one new immigrant is
$100,000. In 2018-19 net overseas migration was 244,000, implying an infrastructure bill of $24.4 billion for that year alone.

The Jobs and Growth mantra that Morrison took over from Turnbull is absolute bull's wool, given that our comes mainly from digging things up and mass immigration.

Great post, ttbn. We are ruled by environmental vandals and traitors to their country.

Ttbn,

The inventiveness of capitalism is inexhaustible, even Marx thought so, Lenin too. We can't anticipate how technology will develop in Australia, but who knows how and when we will make the deserts bloom and re-populate the seas ?

Of course, we should manage our population and its education levels, but there's plenty of room for vastly more people over time.

Plus our humanitarian quota of refugees, currently nearly twenty thousand each year - as long as they are carefully and successfully integrated into Australian society, and not left alienated and marginalised on the outside, we'll all do okay. The more - and the more diverse - the better.

Joe

diver dan,

Thanks, I knew I would eventually get through to someone.

China's machinations in the wake of the WuFlu e.g. annexation of HK, provoking fighting along India-China border, cyber hacking Australian govt, etc. are giving weight to my constant warnings over the years about China's intentions.

One of the panel on The Insiders this morning said exactly what I have been telling my wife that we might be headed for a new Cold War with the world becoming divided between pro-USA and pro-China protagonists.

Wouldn't it be funny if the cyber hackings this week turn out to be a prelude to a Chinese invasion. It already has one foot in the door with all the Chinese migrants, its access to public utilities, and certain wealthy collaborators.

Loudmouth2,

There are plenty of past societies that overexploited their resources and then collapsed. See, for example, David R. Montgomery's book "Dirt: The Erosion of Civilizations". Betting on future technologies that may never come to pass is a fool's game. Just consider the sorts of things that were being seriously proposed in the 1950s and 60s. Where's my flying car? Whatever happened to our electrical power that was going to be too cheap to meter? Why haven't we won the "War on Cancer"? Why haven't we completely conquered infectious disease? Why don't we have bases, let alone colonies on the Moon or Mars? The list could go on. You want us to dive into a pool without checking how deep it is. How about we aim for the sorts of numbers that ttbn has mentioned for now? We can reconsider once those marvelous technologies have been fully proven. We can always increase the population later and at least avoid turning Australia into a place that is poor, populous, environmentally degraded, and conflict-ridden as the countries that people are risking their lives to escape.

Divergence,

First, distinguish between immigrants, usually skilled, with vjobs already lined up, contributing to the economy from Day One, and refugees, who are desperate to find safety but would probably rather stay in their home country.

Second, of course there are idiotic ideas about the future, you may have had your own ? I probably have. And of course, we can't predict where technology and economic and social imperatives might take us. I don't think electric cars will ever (pardon the pun) get off the ground, if only because, like cars on the ground now, their drivers will be needing to go off in all directions and how would flight heights be regulated in those circumstances across a city ?

I'm interested in incremental but significant changes in technology, the sorts of changes that we are already on the verge of, or that we know about but that haven't yet been operationalised. Small, safe, portable nuclear plants, for example, for every remote small town, and along the entire coast, desalinating sea-water and irrigating remote areas.

i.e. realistic innovations which may already be in the pipeline, and achievable in, say the next ten years, if investment can be secured.

Joe

Taswegian this is a great list

That includes increasing (not decreasing) per capita GDP,
less than 0.5m on what used to be called Newstart,
less than 0.5m officially underemployed,
average housing cost less than 25% of median income,
elective surgery waiting lists under 3 months, and
an end to water wars.

What a wonderful country for the average person to live in. Of course, neither labor or liberal cares about the average person.

Loudmouth2 Hope is not a plan.

How about you send me $20,000 to invest for you. I don't have a plan for making a profit for you but I really hope it will work out. That should be good enough for you, right

Unclear and confusing analysis citing and relating migration, net migration and population targets.

Further, Howard was not directly responsible for an increase in net migration but a statistical spike due to expansion of the NOM definition by the UN in 2006, was.....

What we have observed is an increase in temporary churn over of net financial contributors helping to fund budgets to support services and pensions for increasing numbers of Australian retirees, without increasing taxes, with a proportionate decline of working age tax payers in the permanent population.

Hands up who wants to stop or dramatically decrease this churn over and pay higher taxes, or go without services?

Within one generation, if not already, the developed and less developed nations will be in competition for working age migrants as the global population peaks, becoming older and browner.

OK Andras Smith,

Why do countries with little or no population growth, from immigration or otherwise, rank high on the UN Human Development Index? Japan has actually been an extremely successful country, despite a declining population and very little immigration.

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2018/04/japans-economic-miracle/

Less (or no) population growth just gives you higher participation rates, not labour shortages. It also puts less pressure on the environment. Our State of the Environment Reports have shown progressive deterioration over the years, as the population has grown and human demands have increased. Back in 2010, the Australian Conservation Foundation nominated human population growth in Australia as a key threatening process under the Environmental Protection Act.

http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/87ef6ac7-da62-4a45-90ec-0d473863f3e6/files/nomination-human-population-growth.pdf

Nor is there any evidence that human well-being, as opposed to aggregate GDP, has been improved by mass migration. The 2006 Productivity Report on Immigration found that there is only a very small per capita benefit, which goes to the owners of capital and the migrants themselves. Currently, wages are stagnant, housing is far less affordable, congestion is worse, infrastructure is overloaded, etc., etc.

Even if you were correct, you would be proposing a Ponzi scheme. Migrants grow old, just like everyone else, cannot be deported when they have outlived their value to the economy, and will also need pensions and health care. What do we do then?

Agreed Divergence. The notion that taxes go up and government services get worse is just plain false.

Cities like Vienna and Copenhagen that don't have to cope with rapid population increase are able to improve services and develop innovative environmentally friendly projects rather than rush through projects to try to keep up with the burgeoning population. Anybody think the light rail would have been rushed through if Sydney's population wasn't increasing by 200,000 year after year? How's that going?

All the tunnel roads across Sydney are many times more expensive than they would have been, if planning could proceed at a less desperate pace.

Andras Smith isn't the first, and won't be the last to preach the lie that we are doomed economically without the ponzi scheme of constant high immigration and population growth. No mention of flat wages from Andras and certainly no mention of congestion and environmental degradation.

Divergence,

'What do we do then' ?

You could always campaign for the use of Solent Green. But only for your out-groups .....

Joe

Only a small minority of temporary churn over 'migrants' are eligible and remain long term as citizens to claim pensions and services.

The environment report is a'nomination form' stating generalisations with unclear origins, while citing non experts such as Bob Birrell; conversely many places such as Portugal find both depopulation and climate change are responsible for massive fires in the hinterland.

Meanwhile Macrobusiness has no credibility while it also cites Bob Birrell and its research with Van Onselen merely cherry picking various charts and graphs using headline data, which he does constantly.

More credible analysis regarding Japan compared to Australia, supported by relevant data, is from Abul Rizvi in 'Impact of ageing population on economic outcomes'

https://independentaustralia.net/australia/australia-display/impact-of-ageing-population-on-economic-outcomes,13999

Population or immigration is not really the point except for media to dog whistle catering to bigots and deflect from responsibilities of government, relevant agencies and corporate sector, especially fossil fuels and mining, to implement and follow good environmental policy.

As it Australians are leaving a terrible social and environmental legacy for future generations to clean up.... or suppose they can just pray?

Loudmouth2,

You don't have an answer to the various arguments, so indulge in cheap accusations of racism, with no basis. The environment and the average person's quality of life are just as much degraded by massive population growth whether the extra people are Nigerians or Swedes.

Andras Smith,

Your tactic is to simply claim, without evidence, that anyone who disagrees with you isn't credible. Bob Birrell is perfectly well qualified, you just don't like what he has to say. In my opinion, having read both, it is Abul Rizvi who is cherry picking, not Leith van Onselen. If you want to be credible, you need to show exactly how the cherry picking occurred. Do you dispute that wages are stagnant while the prices of essentials such as housing have been skyrocketing? Do you dispute that commuting times in our major cities have gone up? Do you want to argue with the people who wrote our State of the Environment Reports? What are your qualifications?

Divergence, too easy, just shoot the messenger when your beliefs are under attack.

You cited a 'Key Threatening Process Nomination Form' not a formal 'State of the Environment Report'.

Rivzi has actually worked in the immigration department and researching a relevant PhD. while Van Onselen had been called out years ago e.g. for claiming all those temporaries caught up in the NOM can or do become permanent, simply not true due to the annual permanent cap.

There is no peer reviewed research, anywhere, of evidence that (undefined) immigration causes unemployment and other economic issues, can you produce any? Conversely, many commentators now complain that we only have 'immigration' for 'growth'.... cannot have it both ways.

National and global demographics have been and are becoming clearer, increase in ageing population of non tax paying retirees versus proportionate decline in tax paying workforce age; global population to peak mid century then decline, what's the problem?

Birrell let's not even bother...

Andras Smith,

If you don't like Bob Birrell, perhaps you might want to consider Prof. George Borjas at Harvard, who has written extensively on the economics of immigration.

http://scholar.harvard.edu/gborjas/_publications

or look at the peer-reviewed papers of Jane O'Sullivan from the University of Queensland

http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jane_Osullivan2

Finally there is just common sense. Wage theft has been covered extensively in the press and in government reports, where international students and temporary workers have been cheated of their wages because of their vulnerable situation and because they are often desperate to be sponsored for permanent residency. Why would a 7-Eleven franchise hire a citizen or a permanent resident, a school leaver perhaps, with rights, when they can demand back half a temporary migrant's wages, well away from the security cameras? Any benefits from not having to give the temporary migrants pensions are likely to be wiped out by their undermining of wages. My Ponzi scheme argument stands in the case of migrants who are allowed to stay permanently. They grow old, too, just like everyone else.

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Education_and_Employment/ExploitationofCleaners/Report

http://www.ag.gov.au/industrial-relations/publications/report-migrant-workers-taskforce

I don't dispute that the top few percent of Australians do benefit from mass migration. They get a bigger aggregate GDP, giving them more to skim. They also benefit from inflated housing costs and easy profits from real-estate speculation, or a cheap, compliant work force that they don't have to train. As an education consultant, you no doubt understand the financial benefit of huge numbers of international students, who would be less likely to come without work rights or the lure of permanent residency.

As for Leith van Onselen, it is hard to see how he could make up all the graphs that appear in his articles (with sources given). Being qualified doesn't mean never ever getting anything wrong. Einstein famously never accepted quantum mechanics.